President Trump and 41 State Attorneys General Join in Support of South Dakota’s Tax Fairness Case
PIERRE, S.D. – Attorney General Marty J. Jackley is pleased to announce that President Trump and 41 States, two United States territories, the District of Columbia have joined this fight. Eleven amicus briefs have been filed in support of South Dakota’s effort to bring tax fairness to the states.
“We are pleased that President Trump and the 41 State Attorneys General have joined us in seeking tax fairness,” said Jackley. “On April 17, 2018, I will appear before the United States Supreme Court and provide a strong and long awaited voice for our main street businesses.”
South Dakota passed a law in 2016 that would require out-of-state retailers to be treated the same as in-state retailers. The law applies to out-of-state retailers if they have more than $100,000 in sales or complete more than 200 transactions per year within South Dakota.
In the 1992 Quill decision, the U.S. Supreme Court required that a retailer have a “physical presence” within a state before a seller can be obligated to collect and remit that state’s sales taxes on purchases delivered into the state.
Given the controlling precedent of Quill, on October 2, 2017, the Attorney General’s Office filed a petition for certiorari asking the U.S. Supreme Court to review the South Dakota Supreme Court decision in State of South Dakota v. Wayfair, Overstock and Newegg that has been granted.
We remain hopeful that Attorney General Jackley will continue the efforts that the Legislature started with SB 106 a couple of years ago.
That Bill and now the lawsuite is about fairness for our South Dakota businesses and now fairness for local businesses in many states. We were confident that President Trump would see the value in our position, issue especially with VP Pence know the issue very well from a. State’s perspective. This is South Dakota Leadership in action!
Most awkward picture ever. But it shows how powerful Trump is in this primary season.
I agree. I really dislike that picture and the campaign ought not promote it. Awkward is right.
When political leaders take an oath of office, they promise to up hold the Constitution and the laws of the land. But when politicians pass laws which knowingly violate current law and or precedence does that not make those politicians in violation of their oath, and thus such a political maneuvering an impeachable and or indictable offense?
“VSG” as in DACA ?
My thoughts too. I wonder if Fast and Furious is considered passing laws which knowingly violate current law. Guess we’ll wait for the genius to enlighten us;)
DACA is a legal means in the absence of a prior law to address an issue. It is a product within the full discretion of an executive branch in its application and enforcement of laws. This lawsuit on Quill has been manifested with a total understanding that the law passed by the South Dakota legislature, after public deliberations, was not legal.
This political and or legal tactic makes a mockery of our republican form of government. If you do not like a prior Supreme Court decision, then there is a thing called federal laws to narrow the scope of a prior decision, or you can seek a Constitutional amendment, or wait for a third party interjection into the issue with a fact pattern and legal case, which is beneficial to your beliefs and or interests….
That was the intent of our fore fathers, I believe, and if you consider the fact that not all of our fore fathers were on board with the idea of judicial review concerning constitutionality, then this whole political and or legal maneuver is completely outside the intent of our fore fathers and the oaths and the ideas of oaths that they set it place….
DACA is illegal, but you did a pretty good job explaining that away;)
DACA expressly violated federal statutes which require the initiation of removal proceedings.
DACA violated the constitutional obligation of the executive to Take Care That The Laws Are Faithfully Executed.
DACA conferred amnesty and federal benefits under the false pretense of “Prosecutorial Discretion.
DACA conferred a benefit without promulgating a rule. You want a link?
State law, Federal law which one do you want to follow? Seems the states are the ones leading the way, just as our fore fathers intended, right? Which President hasn’t made a mockery of our republic form of government? Please, you’re smarter than this.
The bottom line is this, President Obama never signed off on DACA and then admitted to the public it was illegal. Our state legislature and governor are signing off on something that they admit in public is currently illegal.
We can debate DACA until the cows come home, but the Obama administration had a position on it whether you agree or not. Our state legislature and governor admitted this is a political trick at best; and if a lawyer did the same for an individual client the case would be called frivolous and the lawyer could possibly be held in question by the bar for his or her actions. But because a political entity, like a state and its political leaders are doing it, it some how becomes legit and is given its day in court, but how? It is clearly a violation of the political leaders oaths of office and the courts should not be complicit in this matter. This trick clearly goes against the intent and the means by which our republican form of government is suppose to behave and follow through on……
Well, you’ve got me interested enough in your point to seek out more information.
Yes, we could debate DACA until the cows come home and I’m sure we’ll have more opportunities. Hope you’ll be ready;)
Moo! Moo! 😉
Add to the list 60 law professors who have submitted an amicus curiae brief on the case in support of the state’s position. See: http://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_blog/2018/03/60-tax-profs-file-amicus-brief-urging-supreme-court-to-overrule-quill.html
Ironic that staunch conservatives are so anxious to increase taxes paid by their constituents.
Or how about the fact that conservatives in this state want to use the federal court system to establish a long arm means for individual states to control corporations located in other states. States’ rights is one thing, but when states are given jurisdiction or sovereignty within other states, then how is that any different than a new form of federal supremacy via individual state demands? Where you now have 50 federal governments instead of just one….. Leave it to the South Dakota Republican Party to give us 50 federal governments. Isn’t one enough?
The law says you’re supposed to be paying already. How is this a tax increase?
Or do you think we should only make our in state businesses charge the tax giving out of state businesses who contribute squat to our state a 6.5+%
advantage?
Staunch conservatives believe everyone should pay their share and follow the law and keep tax rates low for everyone. Do you think the half penny sales tax would have been needed if the state was getting the lost online sales taxes?
How do you tax companies that have no representation in the state? Taxation without representation?
Strong support from out of state; strong support in state
Strong support from those who won’t be paying the tax. Shocking.
How do you figure? this allows ALL states not just SD to collect sales tax in their states also…do explain.
Anonymous 10:01,
I agree with online sales taxation. However, I do not want it enacted if it will become a source of new revenue to the state. I want a corresponding reduction in sales taxes so it is revenue neutral.
In fact, I think the legislature should pass a bill which automatically adjusts the sales tax rate down in direct relation to online sales tax collections.
A Governor candidate who makes this promise would be most attractive to m.
It is not a new source..it is a source that is not being collected.
which states did not join the lawsuit? anyone see that anywhere? Thank you
Anonymous 10:50,
I agree with your semantics.
But, it is not money the government has to spend today.
When it shows up in the coffers because “it is a source that is not being collected,” I want my other taxes to be reduced. I do not want more spending. On anything. Period.